OT: New York Mets 2023-2024 Off Season Thread

[Doctor Worm]

I have learned something!

For those who find the math intimidating (which no one should, it really isn't), here's an explanation in words.

Last year the Mets scored 717 runs and allowed 729. A run differential of -12.

According to the formula, if you play 162 games with a run differential of -12, your expected final record is 80-82. But their actual record was 75-87. Five games worse than expected.

So what does this mean?

• Were the Mets simply unlucky last year? Which, over the long run, would be expected to even out?
• Or is there an alternate explanation? For instance, did they lose too many close games due to bullpen deficiencies? Or maybe their hitters aren't good enough to beat the elite closers?

 

[Zak57]

You're welcome!

I will say bullpen getting wrecked in a few games was part of it but we're close to in range of normal variance so I'll go with that and a sprinkle of bad luck.

 

[gman500]

I think Diaz going down had a substantial impact on more games than just ones he would have closed. The change to the depth chart burned out a lot of the staff, leading to more runs in the later innings in general. Combine that with the premier starters being injured or essentially 5-6 inning pitchers, bad things happened

 

[willisneverrana43]

I have learned something!

For those who find the math intimidating (which no one should, it really isn't), here's an explanation in words.

Last year the Mets scored 717 runs and allowed 729. A run differential of -12.

According to the formula, if you play 162 games with a run differential of -12, your expected final record is 80-82. But their actual record was 75-87. Five games worse than expected.

So what does this mean?

• Were the Mets simply unlucky last year? Which, over the long run, would be expected to even out?
• Or is there an alternate explanation? For instance, did they lose too many close games due to bullpen deficiencies? Or maybe their hitters aren't good enough to beat the elite closers?

Or is that in an expected range of variance.

 

[Rutgers NJ]

I think Diaz going down had a substantial impact on more games than just ones he would have closed. The change to the depth chart burned out a lot of the staff, leading to more runs in the later innings in general. Combine that with the premier starters being injured or essentially 5-6 inning pitchers, bad things happened

Exactly.

 

[yesrutgers01]

Exactly.

Imagine how bad it could have been if Robertson was not as good as he was until traded. But even then, if he were the 8 inning guy, that even makes our team that much better before the break.
The Diaz injury was huge in so many way- even mentally, I think it just put a downer from day 1

 

[willisneverrana43]

I think Diaz going down had a substantial impact on more games than just ones he would have closed. The change to the depth chart burned out a lot of the staff, leading to more runs in the later innings in general. Combine that with the premier starters being injured or essentially 5-6 inning pitchers, bad things happened

It meant that the Mets did not have Diaz for approximately 60 innings of the approximately 1460 that they play each year, or one inning for almost every three games.

 

[RAHWAYBOB]

It meant that the Mets did not have Diaz for approximately 60 innings of the approximately 1460 that they play each year, or one inning for almost every three games.

How can you compare the importance of the innings in which a closer appears with all others?

 

[willisneverrana43]

How can you compare the importance of the innings in which a closer appears with all others?

I just did.

Another way I can do this is to note that, over the course of those approximately 1460 innings, the Mets had only 3 more blown saves than the year before.

There's a reason that top closers (and so so closers) get paid much less than top starters (and so so starters). They pay significantly fewer innings and, therefore, have significantly less of an individual impact on the team's overall wins.

 

[RAHWAYBOB]

I just did.

Another way I can do this is to note that, over the course of those approximately 1460 innings, the Mets had only 3 more blown saves than the year before.

There's a reason that top closers (and so so closers) get paid much less than top starters (and so so starters). They pay significantly fewer innings and, therefore, have significantly less of an individual impact on the team's overall wins.

I realize that you know everything. However, the Mets in 2023 as a team blew 19 saves in 53 opportunities or approximately 36%. In 2023 Diaz blew 3 saves in 35 chances or 8.6%. Now attempt to tell us that Diaz's absence in 2023 didn't make a difference.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I realize that you know everything. However, the Mets in 2023 as a team blew 19 saves in 53 opportunities or approximately 36%. In 2023 Diaz blew 3 saves in 35 chances or 8.6%. Now attempt to tell us that Diaz's absence in 2023 didn't make a difference.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The large majority of "blown saves" are blown by someone other than the closer. They are blown by middle relievers in the 6th, 7th, and 8th. For practical purposes they are not blown saves at all. They are blown holds. But since the hold is not an official statistic, officially they count as blown saves.

I do not know how many blown saves the Mets had last year by guys performing in the closer role. Was it more than three? Probably. Less than 19? Certainly.

 

[RAHWAYBOB]

You are comparing apples and oranges.

The large majority of "blown saves" are blown by someone other than the closer. They are blown by middle relievers in the 6th, 7th, and 8th. For practical purposes they are not blown saves at all. They are blown holds. But since the hold is not an official statistic, officially they count as blown saves.

I do not know how many blown saves the Mets had last year by guys performing in the closer role. Was it more than three? Probably. Less than 19? Certainly.

Are you in agreement with Willis that Diaz doesn't mean much? My sole purpose in supplying the statistics I used was to show how valuable Diaz is!

 

[Rutgers NJ]

Imagine how bad it could have been if Robertson was not as good as he was until traded. But even then, if he were the 8 inning guy, that even makes our team that much better before the break.
The Diaz injury was huge in so many way- even mentally, I think it just put a downer from day 1

100% correct

 

[Doctor Worm]

Are you in agreement with Willis that Diaz doesn't mean much? My sole purpose in supplying the statistics I used was to show how valuable Diaz is!

I don't know what "much" means, so I can't answer the question. I do agree with him that a top-end starter is worth more that a top-end closer. But don't take my word for it. Go ask the baseball marketplace. There's a reason why guys like Robbie Ray, Miles Milokas, and Hyun-Jin Ryu make more than Edwin Diaz.

 

[RAHWAYBOB]

I don't know what "much" means, so I can't answer the question. I do agree with him that a top-end starter is worth more that a top-end closer. But don't take my word for it. Go ask the baseball marketplace. There's a reason why guys like Robbie Ray, Miles Milokas, and Hyun-Jin Ryu make more than Edwin Diaz.

I agree with that premise. I am not comparing a closer with a starter. I am just stating that the loss of Diaz was a tremendous blow to the '23 Mets!

 

[Rutgers NJ]

I agree with that premise. I am not comparing a closer with a starter. I am just stating that the loss of Diaz was a tremendous blow to the '23 Mets!

Blown saves not the point, I'm talking blown games because of down the line impact on who got the ball in the 6th,7th and 8th innings. Those games, many of which might not have needed a closer to even pitch if some had to be slotted up in class, pitch innings they never would have with Diaz waiting in the pen. That injury cost the team minimum 10 games when looking at the big picture. Some being asked to pitch on less rest, some being extended when they would never have been. Very short sighted to overlook those impacts.

 

[yesrutgers01]

Who was more important in the Yankees last run, Pettit or Mo?

 

[willisneverrana43]

I realize that you know everything. However, the Mets in 2023 as a team blew 19 saves in 53 opportunities or approximately 36%. In 2023 Diaz blew 3 saves in 35 chances or 8.6%. Now attempt to tell us that Diaz's absence in 2023 didn't make a difference.

Sure. First, your stats are wrong. The Mets blew 18 saves in 2023, making 34 saves in 52 opportunities. In 2022, with Diaz, they blew 15 saves--only three fewer--while making 42 of 57 save opportunities.

3 fewer saves. That's a decent--but also imperfect--measure of Diaz's absence.

Second, why did the Mets have fewer save opportunities in 2023 than in 2022? Well, it had nothing to do with Diaz or any closer. Closers don't create save opportunities; they just try to convert them. Save opportunities are created during the previous 8 or so innings in a game via the performance of the many other players who play so much more than the closer, including starters, other relievers, fielders, hitters. All of what they do leads up to the 9th inning that may include a save opportunity, but much more often does not. During those 8 or so innings leads change; many runs are scored or few runs are scored; great plays are made and/or errors are made; pitchers throw donuts, give up big innings, or give up runs in dribs and drabs; baserunners steal bases, get thrown out, take an extra base, or fail to; and more. The sheer number of innings that are played during a season before a closer may even get an opportunity to show up simply overwhelms the innings in which a closer does participate. As Doc Worm notes, there's just so much that your apples to oranges analysis is blind to. It was doomed before it started.

And yet you started your analysis with your "know everything" comment, which at this point is cringe inducing.

 

[yesrutgers01]

Sure. First, your stats are wrong. The Mets blew 18 saves in 2023, making 34 saves in 52 opportunities. In 2022, with Diaz, they blew 15 saves--only three fewer--while making 42 of 57 save opportunities.

3 fewer saves. That's a decent--but also imperfect--measure of Diaz's absence.

Second, why did the Mets have fewer save opportunities in 2023 than in 2022? Well, it had nothing to do with Diaz or any closer. Closers don't create save opportunities; they just try to convert them. Save opportunities are created during the previous 8 or so innings in a game via the performance of the many other players who play so much more than the closer, including starters, other relievers, fielders, hitters. All of what they do leads up to the 9th inning that may include a save opportunity, but much more often does not. During those 8 or so innings leads change; many runs are scored or few runs are scored; great plays are made and/or errors are made; pitchers throw donuts, give up big innings, or give up runs in dribs and drabs; baserunners steal bases, get thrown out, take an extra base, or fail to; and more. The sheer number of innings that are played during a season before a closer may even get an opportunity to show up simply overwhelms the innings in which a closer does participate. As Doc Worm notes, there's just so much that your apples to oranges analysis is blind to. It was doomed before it started.

And yet you started your analysis with your "know everything" comment, which at this point is cringe inducing.

There were fewer save opportunities the prior year because of the large run differential during most of that year. In 2023- so many close games…

 

[yesrutgers01]

Diaz injury hurt more than saves- every relieve had to move up a spot there is a big difference to have Ottovino, Robertson, Diaz than Smith Ottovino Robertson..,

 

[willisneverrana43]

There were fewer save opportunities the prior year because of the large run differential during most of that year. In 2023- so many close games…

This is an example of how folks can just create an answer to fit their thinking. No, there were MORE save opportunities the year before, not fewer.

 

[RAHWAYBOB]

Diaz injury hurt more than saves- every relieve had to move up a spot there is a big difference to have Ottovino, Robertson, Diaz than Smith Ottovino Robertson..,

I agree. Willis undervalued Diaz with his analysis. The stats I saw stated that the Mets blew 19 saves in 53 opportunities. I do have the ability to read. If the stats I saw were incorrect, I humbly apologize.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Diaz injury hurt more than saves- every relieve had to move up a spot there is a big difference to have Ottovino, Robertson, Diaz than Smith Ottovino Robertson..,

This makes no sense. It’s simply another way to create an answer that fits what you want the result to be. We missed about 62 innings of Diaz, not more, and you can’t muse into existence some sort of cascade effect that multiplies those 62 or so innings into something way more than 62 innings. Even if one were to consider your non-quantified analysis, you’d have to admit that the difference between each of the pitchers that your analysis matches up is only incremental. In other words, saying that Roberts is incrementally worse than Diaz, and Ottovino is incrementally worse than Roberts and so on may be true, but those incremental differences add up to the simple, bigger difference, which is that we missed Diaz for 62 innings. All you have to do is look at the box scores.

 

[willisneverrana43]

I agree. Willis undervalued Diaz with his analysis. The stats I saw stated that the Mets blew 19 saves in 53 opportunities. I do have the ability to read. If the stats I saw were incorrect, I humbly apologize.

No worries.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I would add that the blown saves stat actually overstates the importance of the closer. That is because not every blown save is a loss. It is not uncommon for a team to blow a save, and come back and win. I remember a game once when the Met pitchers had THREE blown saves, and the Mets still won!

So if we were to say that in a given year, Diaz would have four fewer blown saves than his replacement, that does not translate into four more wins. More like two more wins.

I definitely agree that the loss of Diaz had a negative downstream effect. The eighth inning guy becomes the closer, the seventh inning guy becomes the eighth inning guy, etc. Not sure how you quantify that though.

 

[yesrutgers01]

This is an example of how folks can just create an answer to fit their thinking. No, there were MORE save opportunities the year before, not fewer.

That was actually my bad- I had read your years wrong and was going by your numbers but as I said, mixed up the years and thought that could be the only reason.
So, in a way, I did create an answer but not to fit my thinking but to fit what I thought was the numbers provided.

 

[yesrutgers01]

BTW- Hated playing Utley when he was with the Phils but how the F-ck does he get 5 times more votes than Wright? And both should be in the Hall of Very Good but not fame.

Their number are not even comparable. David was better that him in every offensive category.

 

[Zak57]

BTW- Hated playing Utley when he was with the Phils but how the F-ck does he get 5 times more votes than Wright? And both should be in the Hall of Very Good but not fame.

Their number are not even comparable. David was better that him in every offensive category.

I take Wright every single day over Utley but the argument would probably go MI over CI, Chase played in more games because of Wright's injury so in writers mind longer, and got a ring and Wright didn't. Not saying I agree with any of that except for maybe the MI/CI argument.

 

[willisneverrana43]

That was actually my bad- I had read your years wrong and was going by your numbers but as I said, mixed up the years and thought that could be the only reason.
So, in a way, I did create an answer but not to fit my thinking but to fit what I thought was the numbers provided.

I guess. But your response said that there were fewer save chances in the prior year because that prior year had more blowouts. But the prior year had more save chances. So . . .

 

[yesrutgers01]

I guess. But your response said that there were fewer save chances in the prior year because that prior year had more blowouts. But the prior year had more save chances. So . . .

I read your numbers wrong and was trying to make sense of it...

 

[yesrutgers01]

I take Wright every single day over Utley but the argument would probably go MI over CI, Chase played in more games because of Wright's injury so in writers mind longer, and got a ring and Wright didn't. Not saying I agree with any of that except for maybe the MI/CI argument.

What is MI/CI ?

And yes- get it about length- yet, if anyone looks- CU had about 1000 more plate appearances but only about 100 more hits and 17 more HR 55 more RBI and all the normal slash lines of BA/OBP/OPS well under David.

 

[willisneverrana43]

I read your numbers wrong and was trying to make sense of it...

To me, the reason that the 2022 Mets had more save opportunities than the 2023 Mets is simple. They had a way, way better run differential. The 2022 Mets scored 166 more runs than their opponents, while the 2023 Mets scored fewer runs than their opponents. So the 2022 Mets were way more likely to be in the lead after any inning than the 2023 Mets, including after the 8th.

Being in the lead when a pitcher enters the game is an absolute requirement for a save for that pitcher, so the way in which the 2022 Mets outscored their opponents produced more save opportunities as the games moved toward the final inning(s). The reason that the disparity in save opportunities wasn't even greater between the two teams is likely because, from time to time (or maybe more often than that), the 2022 Mets' lead was too large to qualify as a save opportunity.

Simple. No need to connect the leg bone, to the hip bone, to the . . .

By the way, a closer inspection of this analysis also highlights why closers can be less important than most fans (but not teams, if you look at the salaries) think.

 

[Zak57]

What is MI/CI ?

And yes- get it about length- yet, if anyone looks- CU had about 1000 more plate appearances but only about 100 more hits and 17 more HR 55 more RBI and all the normal slash lines of BA/OBP/OPS well under David.

Middle Infield/Corner Infield.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Rhys Hopkins to Brewers. 2 years, $34M. He had been mentioned as a DH possibility for the Mets, although I doubt there was serious interest.

 

[rurichdog]

Who was more important in the Yankees last run, Pettit or Mo?

It was so long ago, I can't recall 😆

 

[Doctor Worm]

Brandon Nimmo rated #2 LF Right Now, by MLB Network.

 

[Doctor Worm]

Another potential bullpen target off the board. Matt Moore signs with Angels, 1 year, $9M.

My wild ass guess: Mets sign Peralta and Ottavino.

 

[Zak57]

I don't think Ottavino returns. Maybe Peralta and one of Neris, Maton, Stanek, etc. Still can't believe the amount of big FA's there are out there. Boras holding up everything as usual and it has kind of killed the baseball off-season with stuff like this dragging into February all the time now.

 

[willisneverrana43]

On the big picture, I'm always worried when a GM is making the moves that you see suggested our touted on message boards, blowhard talk radio and TV shows, and the ever-growing galaxy of on-line sites and blogs that self-declare expertise in baseball and evaluations. Baseball is a death-struggle between executives to get the best talent from a small pool of players, enough talent to consistently beat the other teams on the field. And there's a clear hierarchy of front offices, with some consistently gathering the better talent and others consistently not, then some in the middle. But even the worst of the front offices are way better at this than the self-proclaimed TV and internet experts. So you won't find the answers on-line. And you certainly won't find them in interviews and quotes from people in the game, even anonymous ones, as many of them are just not good enough to assemble winning teams, and I'd bet that the ones who are good enough aren't giving away details and blowing what they believe is their advantage.

So I don't mind when someone like Stearns is not making the moves touted and pined for on message boards and in sports media. I want the guys running my team to be the guys who know more about what they're doing than anyone else--they have to be. So I don't care what Sal Licata yelled into his mic or [insert important sounding name, website or publication] recommends or evaluates.

Now, this doesn't mean that Stearns will be right. But it does mean that he has real ideas about what he wants, and we know that he has a track record of impressive success. So I'm good with that and just watching with interest.

 

[Doctor Worm]

I don't think Ottavino returns. Maybe Peralta and one of Neris, Maton, Stanek, etc. Still can't believe the amount of big FA's there are out there. Boras holding up everything as usual and it has kind of killed the baseball off-season with stuff like this dragging into February all the time now.

Here are just some of the free agent relievers still available:

David Robertson
Adam Ottavino
Aaron Loup
Mychal Givens
Brad Hand
Joely Rodriguez
Justin Wilson
Anthony Banda
Sam Coonrod
John Curtiss
Jeff Brigham
Dominic Leone
Denyi Reyes
Steve Nogosek
Thomas Szapucki
Jacob Barnes
Anthony Kay
Daniel Zamora
Wilmer Font

Just throw a dart and see where it lands. How can you go wrong?